Here is a concept shot of what is a continual evolution of designs. This is way off in the future, but is the end goal of what I'm working towards. Now that I'm starting to acquire actual parts and pieces I'm a bit concerned about the weight. But first things first, and one step at a time. I still have yet to build even one good rotor blade, but I do have a plan now for the first rotor set, and the variable pitch rotor head. Drive system will need lots of testing but that is phase 2. Phase 1 is just doing some performance testing on a single rotor head. Determine lift, drag, power, roll rate, etc.
You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!
Comments
@Robert,
Thanks for links to Aerotechnik WGT21. I had previously seen the photo's of it hanging in the museum, but had not seen the other images. Cool image with the car. Have not seen it in the air. Not sure if it ever got off the ground. Thanks again for links.
I think one of the first large manned quads was the "Aerotechnik WGT21" from 1969, check here or here besides a very first twin-copter, flown by Paul Coru in 1907, check here.
I am sure they had the same problems in the choice of material, vibration, engine-power, weight and size...complexity...:-)
My deep respect to you pioneers.
Robert
You could turn this into a tandem synchropter concept and lose the need for cyclic pitch.
I think drivetrain torsional vibration will be the biggest headache. If you put electric motors at the rotor hubs, you might be able to actively damp any oscillations though - complexity is beginning to skyrocket though...
@Jason, I would be interested to hear about your challenges with a large quad.
randysonnicksen@gmail.com
As a technical exercise it is a great concept. But the practical disadvantages has already been covered.
+1, I dont get the obsession for full scale quads. Having spent a year trying to get a large quad to fly reliably, I can tell you it is not worth the headache and is extremely unsafe with no advantage over a single rotor that I am aware of.
Again, Rob is right. If you want to build an autonomous VTOL aircraft you can climb into and actually fly it is much more achievable, affordable, practical and sensible to take the approach of building a dual fadec style Pixhawk setup into an existing off the shelf kit aircraft like Mosquito Helicopters' XE or Rotorway International's A600.
Just a word of advice to anyone planning to build, fly, service and maintain one of these or any other amateur-build experimental aircraft (Rob, I am not talking to you as I expect you are simply interested in building a large scale UAV using a full scale kit rather than an autonomous manned aircraft)... Please read a few coroners reports on incidents involving simular aircraft (like Rotorway's 162f). Also consider the limitations on what you are allowed to do with an aircraft certified to fly in the experimental category.
Hi Jerry, we should discuss this off-line, but if you're seriously interested, we should talk. Please send me an email at robert.lefebvre@novaerial.com
@Rob
I would do something like this, but i don't know how to pay you on consulting on this.
Can you do it for less than $35k?
http://www.innovatortech.ca/Mosquito_Model_XE.html
Frederic, I agree. The only point to a multirotor, is the simplicity from fixed pitch propellers. Once you throw that away... But the multirotor bandwagon is strong.
I sure wish I had $35k lying around to pick up one of these Mosquito kits and throw a Pixhawk on it. Bam, UAV with a 270lb payload.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next